18. Now, with regard for what has been said, it would be proper to try a definition of ostracism's main functions in the political system of the Athenian democracy. However, before doing it, so that our conclusions do not seem unfounded, it is necessary to analyze factual material and to point main stages the history of ostracism passed during the functioning of the institution in Classical Athens.
In section 2 «Main stages of the ostracism9s history in connection with the evolution of political struggle in Classical Athens», after having studied the source information on specific ostracisms and their contexts, we managed to state a definite division of ostracism's history into period, as connected with changes in the character of public life in the fifth-century B.C. Athenian polis. With most grounds it is possible to mark out the following periods or stages in the functioning of ostracism:
I) 507–488 B.C.: ostracism exists only nominally and is not used in real political life;
II) 487–480 B.C.: sharp intensification in the use of ostracism (five cases during six years);
III) 479–462 B.C.: a period of «calm» (only one ostracism during almost two decades);
IV) 461–457 B.C.: new sharp intensification (three or four ostracisms during five years);
V) 456–416 B.C.: a new period of «calm» (one or two ostracisms during forty years);
VI) 415 B.C.: the last ostracism, which was essentially distinct from all previous ones in some of its characteristics;
VII) After 415 B.C.: ostracism exists only nominally and is not used in real political life.
Marking out these stages and considering them in total and in comparison allowed us to reveal important laws characteristic for the history of ostracism in the fifth century B.C. Intensification of using the institution took place, as a rule, when, first, constellation of political forces on some specific reasons took temporarily a «bipolar» character (two mighty alliances opposed to each other emerged out of many factions), and, second, debatable questions of external relations started playing a significant role in the political life.
19. With regard both for general character of Athenian political life of the Classical period and for empirical analysis of events connected with ostracism's history, it was possible to make conclusions reflected in section 3 «Functions of ostracism in the political system of the Athenian democracy and their evolution». As we have seen above (Chapter II), when the institution of ostracism in its «classical» form was introduced in the course of the late 6 century B.C. Clisthenic reforms, its main functions were «prophylactic» of tyranny and stasis, and control bv the demos over aristocratic political elite. However, eventually, during the 5 century B.C., ostracism gained some new functions, which in some degree became even principal and moved original ones to the background (one can say the further the more). Rival political leaders used ostracism as a powerful tool of struggling with each other, and for the demos it became a means of choice (in a situation of bipolar opposition) between those leaders and their political lines (first of all external ones). It is possible also to say that ostracism was a peculiar means of compensating frustration within the citizen body in conditions of direct polis democracy, and a means rather humane).
It is necessary to note one more circumstance: ostracism, an aristocratic by its origin institution in the democratic polis, kept by tradition its orientation to members of the highest layer of the noble elite, and in this respect it can be considered a measure if not honourable, then in any case emphasizing great importance and authority of a politician who was subject to it.
20. Section 4 «Ostracism and political propaganda» contains materials and conclusions, which still are in many respects preliminary. As far as we know, nobody has yet dealt seriously with this aspect of the ostracism topic. Accordingly, we saw our task in this section not to obtain any results final and categorically formulated (it is rather impossible at the present stage) but to state the problem, to point out its existence and to mark some prospects for further study.
The chronological periods of preparing and carrying out ostracisms were, at the same time, periods of sharp propaganda struggle of rival political groups and their leaders. The struggle became most active during the "election campaign" (however inaccurate is the expression), that is during the time between the preliminary decision on ostracism by the assembly and the voting as such.
Propaganda at such periods took a character personal in a great degree and also discrediting. It was conditioned both by the general important role of personal factor in political life of the Greek polis and by peculiarities of such an institution as ostracism, for it was in it essence directed against «powerful persons». A favourite method of propaganda was, in particular, so to say, «pinning labels», or, to say more terminologically, using personal invectives of various character, which actualized in public opinion one or another «image of enemy» and projected it to particular men. Such invectives, engendered undoubtedly by propaganda, are present in inscription on ostraka in sufficient quantity.
As far as we can judge, performances of comedies at Dionysiac festivals played especially important part in propaganda campaigns before ostracisms. This idea has already been suggested (by S. Brenne), but only as a guess), and we tried to substantiate it by confronting invectives on ostraka with invectives in comedies. The comparison proved to be fruitful and revealed a number of more or less close correspondences and parallels, which in most cases can scarcely be explained by pure coincidence. The same propaganda cliches that circulated in the public opinion were reflected both on ballots for ostracism and in the works of comedy playwrights. It is natural, as fifth-century B.C. Attic comedy had strongly pronounced political character.
21. The bulk of the monograph is completed by Chapter V «On the cessation of using ostracism». In its section 1 «The last ostrakophoria and reasons for falling of ostracism into disuse» we raise the question: why the ostracism of 415 B.C., as a result of which the demagogue Hyperbolus was exiled, was the last one, and because of what factors Athenians after that ceased to use ostracism in the course of internal political struggle?
Both in ancient and modern scholarly literature numerous explanations for that fact have been suggested. Almost all such explanations, as far as one can judge, have the right to existence and contain some grain of truth, sometimes very considerable one. But each of them emphasizes one-sidedly some this or that factor to the detriment of all others. Accordingly, the fullest understanding and the most conclusive solution of the problem can be reached only through combination of existing explanations and not through opposition of them to each other. The point is that the cessation of using ostracism was conditioned not by any singular cause but by the whole complex of various factors, which operated at different times, in different degree and in different combination.
Just after banishment of Hyperbolus an opinion won in the Athenian citizen body, that the ostracism had failed to accomplish its proper function and to take away the political tension. In addition, the victim of ostracism unexpectedly appeared to be a non-noble demagogue, a person unworthy of such measure. Besides all other things, ostracism proved to be an unreliable weapon for those who used it, like a kind of «boomerang»: Hyperbolus, who had initiated the ostrakophoria, himself became the victim, and subsequently that fact made politicians be cautious. The circumstances mentioned above must have prevented from using ostracism during several years, but they did not yet guarantee final rejection of the institution. Later on, it was already other factors that operated: crucial deterioration of general external and internal situation in late fifth-century B.C. Athens, during the last period of the Peloponnesian war; lack of cases when bipolar opposition of political leaders took place, that is cases when, as we have shown above, Athenians usually resorted to ostracism; contraction to minimal figures of the circle of old aristocracy, whose members were potential victims of the institution; absence from the polis of a considerable percentage of citizens (because of continuous hostilities), which did not allow to provide necessary quantity of voters. Still later on, in the fourth century B.C., notwithstanding obvious stabilization of the situation, ostracism did not revive, for the general character of political life gradually underwent fundamental changes as compared with the previous century.
22. The new political reality required new means that were from that moment on used more intensely in the struggle of factions. We mean legal actions of political character, which are considered in section 2 «After ostracism». However, even after de facto cessation of ostrakophoriai the law on ostracism nominally continued to act. Ostracism, even when in disuse, was in the fourth century B.C. a weapon of the demos. That weapon was «in sheath», but it was yearly demonstrated to the political elite.
But the main and the most efficient means of political struggle in Late Classical Athens became legal actions of certain kinds (in particular, the socalled grapheparanomon). They had some common features with ostracism, such as personal orientation and competitive character. However, they differed from ostracism in that they presented a mechanism less dangerous and destructive, both for the initiator of voting and for its potential «target». In general, such trials eventually adopted some functions of ostracism and also served for stabilization of internal political situation, just as ostracism did before them.